Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Vayeishev – Not All Tests Are Passable

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

The beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Vayeishev tells of the story of Yosef being sold down to Egypt. The Medrish Pirkei DiRebbe Eliezer (perek 38) adds some interesting insights into the storyline: “Rebbe Yishmael says that every youngest son is most beloved by his father, as it says, “And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age” (Breishis 37:3). But was Yosef really the youngest wasn’t Binyamin? Rather because [Yaakov] saw through prophecy that he will in the future be a ruler he therefore loved [Yosef] more than all the other brothers and they had great jealousy over him.” The Bayis Hagadol, (a commentary on this medrish and also known as the Beur Maspik,) adds that since Yosef will be a ruler in the future and will support and take care of Yaakov in his old age, that is why he was considered “a son of his old age.”

When Yosef’s brothers convened a court to deliberate whether it was halachically right to kill Yosef for either trying to kill them or, at the very worst, for destroying their Olam Haba, “Reuvain said to them, ‘Don’t murder him, rather throw him into this pit in the desert and he will die there.’ They listened to him, snatched Yosef and threw him into the pit…” What did Reuvain do? He went and sat on top of a hill with the intent to go down by night and take Yosef out of the pit. The nine brothers were sitting around in one place, united with one heart and one idea, and then a caravan of Yishmaelites passed by them and they said, “Why don’t we sell him to the Yishmaelites”. They took him to the edge of the desert and Yaakov, his father, did not hear from him again. They sold him to the Yishmaelites for 20 silvers and each one of them, (including Reuvain) bought shoes for themselves for two silvers each… They said we should make a pact that no one should tell Yaakov Avinu what happened until everyone agrees unanimously to divulge what happened, and anyone who breaks the pact would be excommunicated. Yehuda said to them, ‘Reuvain isn’t here and a pact with excommunication can only go into effect if there are ten.’ What did they do? They had Hashem join the group to make up ten and they declared the pact of excommunication. Reuvain came that night to take Yosef out of the pit and did not find him there. His initial reaction was telling them ‘You killed Yosef, and I was going to come back!’ They told him about what happened and about the pact of excommunication and Reuvain fell silent. Hashem also was silent because of the pact and did not tell a thing to Yaakov, though it writes (in the last pasuk of perek 147 in Tehillim,) ‘He relates His Word to Yaakov,’ but this matter He did not relate to Yaakov, therefore Yaakov did not know what happened to Yosef and he said Yosef must have been torn apart.”

The Bayis HaGadol says that to understand on a simple level why Hashem participated in such a thing, the Mizrachi explains that there was a tradition from the brothers’ forefathers that in the future they would go down to Egypt through the sale of one of the tribes. For this reason, Hashem didn’t want to reveal this secret, for if He would have revealed this to Yaakov, Yaakov would have sent people after him to redeem Yosef, and the decree of the bris bein habisarim would not have been fulfilled. And since all the brothers’ actions were to fulfill the decree of Hashem then Hashem ‘was not able to’ reveal what they did. Once they saw that Hashem agreed to what they were doing and that this was His Will, there was no better partner in these circumstances. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
It would seem that the brothers realized selling Yosef was part of the destiny of the Jewish People as Hashem told Avraham by the bris bein habisarim, as it says, “And He said to Avram, “You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years. And also the nation that they will serve will I judge, and afterwards they will go forth with great possessions” (Breishis 15:13, 14). Since this was part of the destiny of Jews, Hashem went along with the plan and Yaakov thought Yosef was killed by a wild animal, because Yaakov would have foiled the destined plans if he would have found out what had happened.
Why couldn’t Hashem tell Yaakov what actually happened, instead of Yaakov living through the misery of thinking his most beloved son was killed? Where is Yaakov’s belief and trust in Hashem? He surely also knew the tradition stemming from his grandfather, Avraham, of what was destined to happen and he also knew through prophesy that Yosef would one day become a leader. So why couldn’t he at least put two and two together and believe that this was all part of Hashem’s master plan, decreed by Hashem Himself to Avraham, and possibly Yosef would wind up becoming viceroy in Egypt and they would eventually leave with much wealth as promised by Hashem?

It would seem that Yaakov’s love for Yosef was so strong that he would not have been able to accept that this was a decree from Heaven and he would have redeemed Yosef, as the quality of natural choice in the world, which would have thwarted the plans of Jewish destiny. But since Hashem does not give a test which is impossible for a person to pass, and Yaakov, based on a miniscule level of emotional sensitivity would not have been able to pass this test of his faith in Hashem, verses his love for his son, therefore Hashem kept it secret from Yaakov to let destiny unfold.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 footnote 18 and rest of halacha 4

The Chofetz Chaim had mentioned in his note that you must first tell the victim what had happened to him and who did it before you tell anyone else in matters where it’s unlikely or not the situation where he would be compensated. This is because word spreads and if he finds out second hand what happened that might make matters worse and create a tremendous fight. We want to avoid internal fight amongst the Jews. The #1 reason for arguments is rechilus, people tell on each other to others in a fashion which allows a bad situation to escalate. Hashem created a prohibition of rechilus (which the Chofetz Chaim discusses in the next part of this book, after chapter 10) just for this reason, to minimize the possibility of finding amongst His children. A person might make an excuse for himself that he would be allowed to tell others, before he tells the victim, assuming he meets all the rules, because anyways there is a chance, albeit a farfetched chance that maybe the criminal will repent and give back what he owes. But we have to assume that it is a farfetched chance that he will actually repent since he was already rebuked and didn’t listen or is known not to listen to rebuke, therefore, unless it is probable compensation can be exacted then it is forbidden to spread the word if what happened before telling the victim even if it is for the proper intent of teaching people not to follow the ways of this evildoer. It is better to not cause fighting amongst the Jews then teach others a lesson not to follow in the bad ways of these criminals.

Furthermore, you have to be careful who you give this information to, for if you tell people who aren’t willing to listen to your warnings not to follow the ways of the criminal, for example if you are talking to people who are also thieves or part of the mafia who don’t care about the way this criminal acted. Then you might cause them to speak rechilus because they might tell the criminal what you told them, even if you met all the rules and had the right intent to try to stop them from following what he did, but telling the wrong people might escalate a big argument and might even cause them to tell on you to the government or other non-Jews and create serious problems for the Jews.

It also doesn’t matter if someone asked you what happened or you just tell them if you are allowed to then it’s fine if not, then not. Many times people make up excuses that they can tell their family members what other people have done to them, and it’s a mitzvah to do so because the verse in Yeshayahu 58:7 says “You shall not hide anything from your own flesh and blood” However only if all the prerequisites are met them you can tell them if not, then it’s absolutely forbidden and straight out rechilus/lashon hara.

Posted on

Vayishlach – Never Give Up on Your Child

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

According to calculations based on the Seder HaOlam, by the Tanna Rebbe Yossi ben Chalafta, Reuvain was 15 years old when he switched Yaakov’s bed from Bilhah’s tent to his mother’s, Leah’s, tent. This act was a very immodest gesture and demonstrated a lack of respect to his father as seen from how the pasuk treats its severity, “And it came to pass when Israel sojourned in that land, that Reuven went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine, and Israel heard [of it], and so, the sons of Jacob were twelve” (Breishis 35:22). Rashi explains Reuvain’s defense, “וישכב AND HE LAY — Because he switched his couch, Scripture accounts it to him as though he had actually sinned in this manner. But why did he switch his couch? When Rachel died Yaakov removed the couch to Bilhah’s tent and Reuvain came and protested against the slight thus inflicted on his mother (Leah). He said: “If my mother’s sister was her rival, is that any reason why the handmaid of my mother’s sister should become a rival to her!” On this account he disturbed the couch (Shabbat 55b).”
Though Reuvain had good intentions, they were still misguided; however the Ralbag learns a lesson from Yaakov’s reaction or lack thereof, “which is that it is appropriate for a person to not blow up at his eldest son over the despicable acts he committed, for maybe he might push himself away from him and totally lose him. Rather it is befitting for this person at this juncture to bring his son closer to him in order to guide him onto the right path. For this reason, the Torah related that Yaakov had heard about the terrible act Reuvain had done, and it makes no mention of Yaakov getting angry at him. However, when Yaakov gave orders and blessings at the end of his life, he punished Reuvain for this horrible act by snatching away his birthright and giving it to Yosef.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
It is fascinating that the proper thing to do is to still punish your child after he has learned how to act appropriately and has done teshuva (repentance), which chaza”l say Reuvain did. Indeed, he even led the way for Yehuda to do teshuva for his wrongdoing of not saving Yosef and bringing him back to Yaakov, when he was thrown into the pit, though he had the chance. Yet Reuvain still deserved punishment and because he understood the wrong he did, because of the proper guidance from Yaakov, there was no worry about him being angry and leaving the family when he lost his birthright to Yosef.

However why does the Ralbag point out this lesson of not being quick to anger and throwing one’s child out of his house for a severe sin he has done, specifically pertaining to the eldest child; wouldn’t it pertain to any child? Imagine if G-D forbid, any child became a drug addict, stole thousands of dollars’ worth of jewelry from his parents and beat up his brother. Would it make a difference whether he was the oldest, youngest or middle child, either way, the parents’ reaction would be either to get angry and throw him out of the house or more appropriately take him in, bring him closer, care for him and help him fix his problem; so why does the Ralbag emphasize him being the eldest child?

It would seem to the Ralbag, that of course the most appropriate thing would be to show patience, love, and compassion for your own child, and to direct him on the right path. But when it comes to the eldest child a parent might have higher expectations for him or her and be quicker to anger, irrationally throwing the child out of the house if he or she does not live up to those expectations. That’s basic human nature or psychology of a parent towards their eldest, therefore the Ralbag goes out of his way to inform parents to not act on human nature and be quick to get angry just because one’s eldest is majorly failing at what his expectations are and rather be patient and show proper love and guidance for this wayward child of theirs.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 4 footnotes 14-17

The positive use of telling others about a person who humiliated someone else besides making an impression on other how bad it is to embarrass others or to potentially convince the perpetrator to apologize, besides that there is a great benefit that can come out for the victim even if he doesn’t get any money out if the deal, which is other people sympathizing with him which will make him feel better.

Now, you might think that only for the purpose of helping the victim can you tell one person at a time what happened but if you want to spread the word to create awareness of the severity of the sin or to get the perpetrator to fix his ways then you need to tell people in groups of 3 or more, that ensures it will spread and shows you are doing it for the right reasons and not for your own benefits, however in this case where you already tried rebuking the guy and it didn’t work you don’t have to tell people in groups, you can tell them about the severity of the crime individually and you won’t look like you are doing it for ulterior motives other than to spread the truth.

The Chofetz Chaim wasn’t sure if you are just spreading the word for the sake of warning others not to follow in that path whether you are allowed to do that with name dropping in a case where it is possible that the perpetrator my have an excuse, for example he didn’t know any better or didn’t realize the severy if his crime, then maybe you can’t say any names.

And when the Chofetz Chaim said you should tell others of what happened without first telling the victim that us only if telling other won’t have any monetary repercussions for the victim but if it does then you can tell others before telling the victim.

Posted on

Vayetzei – Using Our Emuna Muscle

In the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Vayetzei, Yaakov takes a rest on the way to Haran and has the famous dream of angels going up and down a ladder. When he wakes up, he realizes he is in a very holy place. “And Jacob arose early in the morning, and he took the stone that he had placed at his head, and he set it up as a monument, and he poured oil on top of it. And he named the place Beth El, but Luz was originally the name of the city” (Breishis 28:18, 19).

Every letter, word, and phrase in the Torah has a reason behind it. Rabbeinu Bachye asks, “The place he [Yaakov] called Beis El is Yerushalayim, and what is the significance of informing us that it was called Luz originally, and what benefit is reaching us from this [knowledge]? It makes sense to say that the pasuk is coming to hint to us with this name that from this place the world started to expand and develop. And behold it is the beginning of creation and its renewal, therefore [the pasuk] revealed to us that the name of the city was originally Luz from the same language as Luz, which is a body part on the spine of a person from where in the future He will awaken, renew, and recreate for the sake of the resurrection of the dead. For just as the incredible innovation [of the creation of the world] stemmed from there, so too the wonder of the resurrection of the dead will start from there. King David already elaborated on this concept and said that the creation of the world and also the creation of the soul and the body all are from the middle which is Zion. That is what it means in Tehillim, beginning of perek 50, ‘God, God the Lord, spoke and called to the earth… From Zion, the finery of beauty… He shall call to the heavens above etc.’” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The stone that Yitzchak was placed on as an offering by Akeidas Yitzchak is the same stone from which Hashem created Adam, and it is rests in the Beis Hamikdash, and it remains in its place to this day. (Indeed, it is from there that Muslims mistakenly believe that Mohammad ascended to heaven). This place is where all of human life started, and everything evolved. Chaza”l say that Yerushalayim is at the center of the earth, from whence everything is perfected, and it is the epicenter of advancement throughout the ages. Because it is the source of the advancement of mankind, Yerushalayim was originally called Luz, just like the specific vertebrae on the spine where Chaza”l say the resurrection of the dead for each individual will commence and reconfigure the body.

It would seem that this resurrection at the end of days will begin in Zion, Yerushalayim, just as the beginning of mankind began from that same central point, which is the significance for the pasuk to be telling us why it was called Luz originally. But what benefit is there in whether we know or not this knowledge, that the resurrection of the dead will in the future start from Yerushalayim?

The last of the 13 Principles of Faith spelled out by the Rambam is “I believe with complete faith that there will be a resurrection of the dead whenever the wish emanates from the Creator, Blessed is His Name and exalted is His mention, forever and all for all eternity.” The first Mishna in the 10th perek of Sanhedrin, Perek Chelek, lists as one who has no share in the world to come, one who says the resurrection of the dead isn’t in the Torah. The Gemara there explains the reason why he loses his share in the World to Come is because since he denies the resurrection of the dead he will not be resurrected.

Not only is this pasuk a hint in the Torah to the resurrection of the dead but Rabbeinu Bachye is telling us that the Torah wanted to train us to believe in such a concept. For just as we can believe that Hashem fashioned all of creation and created man from this point on earth, so too Hashem will recreate, or resurrect, everyone deserving from that point on earth using their spinal vertebrae called Luz. Because history happened in the past and we presently can’t see what actually happened or take a time machine to find out what actually happened then we must rely on belief in the mesorah, tradition, that is passed down from generation to generation, of what has happened in history from the beginning of time, all sourced from the Written and Oral Torah.

 However, it would seem that this pasuk is giving us an indicator, an aid of how to help us strengthen our belief muscles. It is easier to believe the history of what has happened in the past, especially if there are visual aids and hints that could paste together a puzzle and picture of what must have happened. The future does not have that kind of clarity or even hints, no stories or relics, it is all speculative at best. Therefore a greater leap of faith is needed to believe in something that will take place in the future. However, Hashem made it more tangible for us to understand what will happen in the future by the resurrection of the dead by telling us that it is the same concept from where all of man had started from. So, by working on our belief system of how Hashem originally created the world we can more easily understand and believe what will happen at the end of days so that we will merit to be a part of such an illustrious event.

Hashem has purposefully created a situation where we can use easier more simple beliefs in order so that we can apply them to more difficult, esoteric beliefs to make the belief system more palpable as long as we put forth the efforts into recognizing this system of belief in Hashem.

Posted on

Toldos – Defining a Lie

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

In this week’s Torah portion of Toldos, Yaakov receives the blessings from Yitzchak in what seems to be a deceptive manner towards Esav and Yitzchak, and Rivka, his mother, even seems to be in on the plot. The Radak brings up an obvious and famous question on the way Yaakov acted. “There are those that ask in wonderment how Yaakov who was a tzadik (righteous) and G-D fearing, could speak a lie? But this is no wonder, for Yaakov knew he was more fitting to receive the blessings than his brother. And the spirit of prophecy that would rest on Yitzchak to bless him would more greatly go into effect by Hashem if [Yitzchak] would bless him and not his brother, because [Yaakov] was more desirable to Hashem than [Esav]. And switching words in circumstances like this is not shameful for a tzadik, for we see that Hashem said to the prophet Shmuel, “[And Samuel said, ‘How shall I go? For, if Saul hears, he will kill me.’] And the Lord said, ‘You shall take a heifer with you, and you shall say, ‘I have come to slaughter (a sacrifice) to the Lord’” (Shmuel Alef 16:2). So to Avraham and Yitzchak said about their wives ‘She is my sister’ and this was not considered for this reason speaking a lie because out of fear they said what they said. And so, by Yaakov when accepting the blessing of his father, even though he changed his words it is not consider speaking a lie. Furthermore, it was the command of his mother, and the Torah writes, ‘A man, his mother and his father he shall fear’ (Vayikra 19:3). Also, she was a prophetess, and when she said to Yaakov, ‘Upon me shall be the curse’ (27:13), Onkelos translates that to mean ‘On me it was said in prophecy that you will not be cursed, my son’” (Radak on Breishis 27:19). (Click here for Hebrew text.)
It is true that Rivka had a prophecy that Yaakov would not have been cursed, but does that give a right to lie and trick your father? Isn’t there a well-known concept in Judaism that “the end does not justify the means?” So, even if the end looks bleak through natural means if Yaakov would not lie and trick his father into giving him the blessings,  does that mean he is allowed to commit a sin and lie to his father? Why wasn’t this called lying if it is plainly what he did? And even if you make up excuses that if you put the comma in a different place he really wasn’t lying, he really said “It is I, Esav is your firstborn;” he is still deceiving his father, and for someone on his level of righteousness and attentiveness of Hashem’s mitzvos he should not have even been perceived as lying?!

Furthermore, the excuse of doing it out of the mitzvah of listening to his mother is no excuse because the end of that very pasuk says “and you shall observe My Sabbaths. I am the Lord, your God” (Vayikra 19:3), why does the Torah juxtapose fearing one’s parents and observing Shabbos in the same pasuk and conclude “I am the Lord, your God: [where “your” is in the plural form, meaning to say,] [because] both you and your father are obligated to honor Me! Therefore, do not listen to him to negate My commands. — [B.M. 32a]. If that is the case then Yaakov had no obligation and was indeed forbidden to listen to his mother if she is causing him to sin; so how could Yaakov go through with receiving the blessings in this fashion?! 

The obvious answer is that what he said was not a lie, and therefore he was allowed to say what he said. The question is why not? It would seem, though, that we have to redefine what is a lie. Yaakov, Shmuel, Avraham, and Yitzchak all had to say and do things which looked deceptive and or false, but under the circumstance, since they plainly knew without a doubt the will of Hashem, in their calculations there was no way to accomplish His will without changing words and being deceptive,  barring an open miracle, which as a rule in this natural world we are told not to rely upon; indeed then what they said and did was not in fact a lie. Fulfilling the will of Hashem is not a lie, it is only a change of words. On the contrary those that try or want to stop that will from going into effect are carrying out the lie.

Therefore, by Shmuel, when he was told to anoint Dovid as King and he would have to pass by Shaul, Hashem, Himself told Shmuel to look like he was carrying a cow to be sacrificed, so that Shaul would not realize what was happening and kill him. This was proper hishtadlus (effort), that was supposed to be shown in this world of nature and a miracle was not supposed to be relied upon. So too Avraham and Yitzchak, through all natural means, feared they would have been killed as the laws of the area they entered dictated, if they would have said she is my wife. There is no mitzvah to kill yourself and Hashem wanted Avraham to go down to Egypt and Yitzchak to the Philistines during a famine, so according to all natural causes, barring any open miracles, which they had no right to rely upon, then the proper thing to do was to switch their words and deceive the people of that area. This is not called lying because they are doing the will of Hashem, who defines truth and is by definition completely truthful.

This is also true by Yaakov, since he knew that it was Hashem’s will for him to receive the blessings. But in this natural world, barring a miracle, there would be no way of him receiving them, then talking and acting in this fashion was the only natural means of fulfilling Hashem’s will and therefore it was not a lie. This means he did not sin and had a mitzvah to follow his mother’s command.  It has nothing to do with the axiom “the end do not justify the means” since nothing wrong was done.

This does not mean that one can lie whenever he thinks he is being stopped from doing Hashem’s will. Chaza”l clearly state that Hashem does not want people to be habitual liars. That is not His will. Being attuned to Hashem’s will precisely is not so easy. Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, and Shmuel obviously were because they heard and understood prophecy, and for rare circumstances they were allowed to change their words and perceive to be deceptive. However, the lesson learned from here is that the definition of a lie is something going against Hashem’s will, for Hashem is all truthful.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 3 and 4

Halacha 3: Even if you try to meet all the prerequisites to speak out against a perpetrator in a legal way, but if you are the same type of sinner as the perpetrator then you can’t say a anything because we assume you aren’t speaking out to help anyone besides yourself, to make the perpetrator look back and yourself look good. For example, a thief can’t rattle on another thief, or a business swindler can’t rattle on a business swindler, or a drug addict can’t rattle on another drug addict who might be selling drugs to others etc. We see this in Navi that Yehu was accountable for killing the house of Achav even though the Navi said to do so because they were an evil kingship and Yehu was rewarded for 4 generations of kings in his family for following the prophet’s word but because he wound up following in their evil ways when he became king over Israel then he became accountable for killing them. So to you can’t speak lashon hara about someone if you yourself have the same fault because you are just making yourself look good by speaking out against him, which is just covering your tracks not the intent to help the situation.

Halacha 4: Because your whole intent must be for the good, for example to help the victim then you can only tell people who will help the situation. But not just police, it could mean telling doctors or psychologists what happened to help the person damaged or embarrassed to get healthy again, or anyone one else who can fix the situation. However, it is also permissible to tell anyone else with mentioning names of the perpetrator if it will stop them from following his ways or cause the perpetrator to repent and fix what he did out if pressure. But as soon as he repents you can’t tell anyone what he did in the past. Also you can’t tell anyone what happened until the victim is informed because if he finds out from someone else it might create more animosity towards the perpetrator then he would have if he was first told what and who did by the eyewitness who promises him he can try to get the situation resolved, or at least under control.

Posted on

CITE Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha two concluded

Rule #6: Before speaking out against a perpetrator you have to be sure there is no other way to fix the issue besides speaking lashon hara about him whether it is to help the victim or to stop this type of behavior, for example if you can say the story of what happened without any name calling to send the message that what happened should not be done that would be better. The extent of avoiding lashon hara we see from the case of Achan in the Book of Yehoshua. Achan stole spoils of war secretly. Yehoshua wanted to know what happened. He asked Hashem who did it. Hashem said what do you think I am, a tattletaler? I won’t speak lashon hara, make a lottery and the one picked is the one guilty. Hashem would not straight out tell Yehoshua who the culprit was rather it was indirectly Divinely revealed through a lottery because another means of revealing with saying out right was possible. Hashem acted through these means even though the gemara in Sanhedrin 11a and 44a says that not only did Achan steal the spoils that were sanctified but he also was adulterous to the highest degree with a naara hami’urasa, it was because of him that the Jews last a battle, and he transgressed the Five Books of Moses. This should put him into a category of not being part of “your nation” and therefore it should have been permissible to speak lashon hara about him. However, because there was another way to reveal his guilt it was forbidden for Hashem to tell Yehoshua that it was Achan who is causing all this trouble. We find this concept of needing to act differently, if possible, by other halachos as well. For example, if someone is running after another to kill him and you can stop it by disability the pursuer without killing him, then if you kill the pursuer, you are considered a murderer. So to if someone is going to hit someone else and you can defend the victim or the victim can defend himself with hurting the attacker then one would be guilty for hurting the attacker. When the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 421:13 says the victim or someone around him can hit back a person who struck him the Shach says that’s only if he is defending himself so that the attacker will not strike again.

Rule #7: If by you telling others you will harm the perpetrator more than he would deserve if he was taken to court then you can’t tell anybody. Not only does this mean that if two of you tell others, let say about a thief, so you are like two witnesses but those that find out will not only go after the thief to force him to return the goods, but they will also beat him up, then you can’t tell them even at the expense of the victim never getting his stolen goods back. If you are only one person divulging the information to others, then the best you can do is ensure that those people could convince the perpetrator to show up in court and let the court deal with the problem just like a single witness can only force the perpetrator to swear in court but can’t be the reason for the sentencing.

If all 7 rules are met and still the problem isn’t resolved or the message isn’t clear for others to stay away from doing these actions, or the perpetrator has not repented then others can be told with divulging names so that the problem can be more easily resolved.

Posted on

Chayei Sarah – A Leap of Faith

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

In this week’s Torah portion of Chayei Sarah, Avraham sends his trusted servant Eliezer to find a wife for Yitzchak. He finds Rivka at the well and asks her for a drink of water, and she proceeds to give his animals a drink as well. Eliezer then gave her gifts of betrothal before he even asks her who she was. “Now it came about, when the camels had finished drinking, [that] the man took a golden nose ring, weighing half [a shekel], and two bracelets for her hands, weighing ten gold [shekels]” (Breishis 24:22). Rashi explains that there was a symbolism behind each of the pieces of jewelry Eliezer gave Rivka. “Half [a shekel]: This alludes to the shekels of Israel, half a shekel per head. — [Targum Jonathan] and two bracelets: An allusion to the two Tablets paired together. — [Gen. Rabbah (60:6), Targum Jonathan], weighing ten gold [shekels]: An allusion to the Ten Commandments [inscribed] on them. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:6].”
The Levush Haorah, wondering why Rashi gives symbolism to each of these gifts, gives a very deep and profound insight into Eliezer’s intentions. He says, “It would seem to me that Rashi specifically pointed this out because the pasuk did not write, ‘The man took a golden nose ring and he put it on her nose, and two bracelets etc.’ Rather the pasuk was hinting with this that he was not concerned to give her a gift of greater value, rather he just wanted to hint with it certain concepts. And even though she definitely did not understand them and did not know what they were, nevertheless, it is possible to say that he did this in order to do an action that would strengthen the success of his journey. Meaning, that she will be the woman that Hashem will prove to be for Yitzchak. We find in many places of prophecy that the prophet will strengthen and fortify his prophecy with an action the prophet performs, for example, ‘And he said, “Open the window to the east,” and he opened it; and Elisha said, “Shoot!” And he shot. And he said, “[This is] an arrow of salvation from the Lord, and an arrow of victory over Aram, and you shall strike the Arameans in Aphek until they are completely annihilated”’ (Melachim Beis 13:17). There are many other examples like that one, check and you will find them. This is one of the secrets of prophecy to energize the Powers On High. So too he, [Eliezer], wanted to energize upon her Powers From On High so that she will merit and be ready for this holy match (made in Heaven). This will also answer the question everyone asks of why he first gave them to her and then asked her who she was, for even though he relied on the merit of Avraham, and trusted in him, as Rashi explained, nevertheless, what’s the big deal? Why take any chances? What would hurt if he would have asked her name first and afterwards give her the presents? It would have been better! But according to what I am saying, this isn’t a problem, because if he would have asked her beforehand and then given to her, then there would not have been any room for [spiritual] energy and inspiration, for he would have given it with the confidence of knowing who she was. He would have relied on that and not on the intent of arousing [spiritual] energy, but now that he first gave and did not originally ask, his thoughts and intents were more clinging On High with his inspirational energy in a fashion of prayer and beseeching and it more actively created a clinging to Hashem through his intent, thoughts and arousal of [spiritual] energy. If one truly thinks about this, he’ll understand.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
It sounds like from this Levush Haorah that Eliezer was giving some sort of spiritual, kabbalistic sign of success for finding what he thought would be the perfect match for Yitzchak. But wasn’t he taking a big risk? It sounds like the jewelry he gave her was not so expensive; what if she had been insulted and rejected the proposal? Why should he have risked putting in jeopardy such an important mission? He should have put in all his efforts to ensure success and make a good impression on her for Yitzchak! Furthermore, what if she was the wrong girl? Avraham asked him to find his family, so shouldn’t Eliezer have inquired first to be sure he did not mess up? What if he was wrong? You can’t put trust in Hashem on someone else’s expense, especially with so much at stake like a proper shidduch for Yitzchak!

However, if you think about this a bit, I believe there is an incredible insight into bitachon, trust in Hashem, that can be learned from the Levush Haorah’s understanding of Eliezer’s actions. It would seem that the proper effort, hishtadlus, for Eliezer was to have more bitachon, trust in Hashem, even blind faith of sorts which was a matter of taking risks.  But by taking the actions he took, and making the decisions that he made, it was in fact the proper efforts he was supposed to take, and if he had not, then it’s possible that the shidduch and marriage would not have been the same. This trust in Hashem is what transformed his efforts into calculated efforts and not just a blind leap of faith.

The way to understand this best is what the Chovos Halevavos says in the beginning of his introduction to the chapter on Bitachon, “The benefits in religious matters: Among them, peace of mind, and trusting in G-d as a servant must trust in his master. Because if one does not place his trust in G-d, he will place his trust in something else, and whoever trusts in something other than G-d, the Al-mighty will remove His providence from such a person and leave him in the hands of the one he trusted.” 

Eliezer’s actions though seemed odd, risky, and improper, but on the contrary ensured that he will be guided and protected in the “Hands” of Hashem which guaranteed and was in fact a sign of a successful mission.

Posted on

Vayera – A Pinch of Salt

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

The Angels told Lot and his family to flee Sodom in this week’s Torah portion of Vayera, because they were going to destroy the city with fire and brimstone. They warned them to not look back, and Rashi says the reason for this is because Lot and his family were wicked with them. It was only because of the merit of Avraham that they were saved, and they are not worthy to see others being punished while themself being saved (Rashi on Breishis 19:17).

The Torah relates that while Lot and his family were running for their lives, “But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt” (19:26). Rashi gives a reason why she specifically turned into a pillar of salt instead of the same punishment everyone else got of fire or brimstone: “By salt she sinned and by salt she was punished. Lot said to her, ‘Give a little salt to these guests.’ She said to him, ‘This evil custom too you come to institute in this place?!'” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Rashi is based on a Medrish at the end of Breishis Rabba 50:4, which took place when Lot brought in and took care of his two guests before they told him to flee the city. However, there is a medrish a bit later (Breishis Rabba 51:5), on this very pasuk that discusses his wife turning into a pillar of salt. This medrish in facts tells us why she was turned into a pillar of salt, “Rebbe Yitzchak said that she sinned with salt. That night the angels came to Lot, what did she do? She went to all her neighbors and asked them, ‘Give me salt, for we have guests.’ Her intent was for everyone in the city to realize what was happening and for that reason she became a pillar of salt. The Maharz”u adds that because she went around to her neighbors, she therefore became frozen as a pillar of salt that she could not walk. This was exact measure for measure for her wrongdoing. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

If that is the case, then why did Rashi quote an earlier medrish for the reason why she was turned into a pillar of salt, and why in fact does the Maharz”u in this medrish reference this previous medrish as a source where everything will be explained when in fact this medrish seems to be self-explanatory?

 To put, the severity of the issue  into proper context, it is known that one of the laws of Sodom was to not accept or treat guests nicely. Infact, it was a capital crime to take care of guests in Sodom, the Sodomites being worried about strangers taking advantage of them. Obviously, this is a very selfish mindset which was taken to an extreme. But Lot’s wife being from Sodom felt threatened by her husband for asking for salt for the guests to dip their matzah into, since it was Pesach time,  which was a show of hospitality. This in fact the Maharz”u points out on the medrish that Rashi quoted that measure for measure for sinning with salt Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt.

It would seem from the basic understanding of the second medrish that the reason why she turned into a stiff pillar of salt was because she walked around to each neighbor asking for a pinch of salt with the intent of informing on her husband. When following through on what happened, we see her plan worked and a wild group of people gathered in front of their house demanding the surrender of the guests. Only because the Angels blinded the people were they able to escape the city with Lot’s family. Why didn’t Rashi use this medrish which is more of an exact reason for her punishment measure for measure? Informing on Lot to the Sodomite citizens is much more of a severe sin than just arguing with him. There are very serious punishments for an informant in Jewish Law and one of the causes of the destruction of the second Beis Hamikdash was Bar Kamtza informing on the Jews to the Roman government. So, it would make more sense for Rashi to have quoted this medrish which more directly discusses the reason for her punishment and discusses a more severe sin she did then to quote the first medrish which was only the initial skirmish and disapproval she had with Lot?

We must say that the blame for the punishment was the initial sin of arguing with her husband which spiraled into informing on them and almost getting at least the guests but possibly everyone killed. But because she didn’t keep the initial reason for sin in check and she just escalated the problem, the blame was on the initial altercation and not for the more severe sin which ensued afterward.

We can learn from here a possible trick on how to stop ourselves from continuing to sin, for if one realizes that the blame of his or her sin was for the initial starting point which one allows to escalate and make worse than he or she would be sure to keep it in check out of embarrassment or fear of punishment so that the matter won’t get worse.

Realizing that the blame for sin is on the initial action even though the punishment is on the entire process might stop the whole process of the sin from happening.